Posted
by
timothyon Tuesday April 23, 2013 @08:44AM
from the trains-are-big-and-dangerous dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Two men were arrested in Canada, accused of conspiring to carry out an 'al-Qaeda supported' attack against a VIA passenger train in the Greater Toronto Area. The arrests were products of 'extensive' co-operation between Canadian and US intelligence agencies, who had been investigating the plot since August 2012." From this article, it's not clear whether any actual al-Qaeda support was forthcoming, or whether the accused plotters merely thought there was, by means of an FBI sting operation, as in the 2006 case in Florida.

Material success is proof that the infidel is soft, and (paradoxically) oppressing our glorious people! The best thing to do with this people is prove the vapidity of their narrative by treating them like criminals in a fair and transparent criminal justice system.

The title fails to mention the fact that it was the Muslim community, up here, that turned the two guys in. Had nothing to do with the FBI. A few men, in the Mosque that they went to, heard about the plan and reported it to the RCMP.

I don't get extremists maybe that is a good thing: but you have a couple nut jobs that want to blow stuff up... okay. So why can't they keep their mouths shut until they do? I can see if they got caught trying to get supplies or someone to help them but running off their mouths about their plans is just silly. Good thing they do but just saying dumb as door knobs. I agree though the Muslim community deserves to share the credit for their help as they definitely (and wrongly) get their share of the blame every time a problem comes up involving a Muslim.

Also I agree RCMP != FBI though I guess I kind of get the mistake since the RCMP is often compared as the Canadian version of the FBI. It is quite different though in that a lot of rural areas have the RCMP as their primary law enforcement so they do have federal powers but sometimes are doing local policing too.

Conspiracies are *very* difficult to do well, that's why they usually fail. Think about your group of friends, they may well believe that what you are saying is right and good, but once you go over the line, there is no way they are going to follow you over it, and they'll turn you in without you even realizing it.

When you are doing certain things, you're not even going to be able to trust your family and closest friends. Chances are, while some of them will not want to get you in trouble, they're probably not sociopaths and will eventually see what is happening and try to put a stop to it.

And it's not a simple matter of keeping your mouth shut: it is difficult to be a lone wolf attacker and most of them have some sort of support to get them the materials and skills they need to carry out attacks. That's why al-Queda does a lot of work to disseminate terrorism how-tos on the Internet, but of course, if you have those materials or access them, you could be tracked.

Mah closer to 200. There is rural and then there is Canada rural. My understanding is that northern territories and north part of BC is largely RCMP territory. There are low population areas of Ontario that are ~500mi from the border but as far as I know they still have regional/provincal police. Basically it is up to the province whether or not they end up policing themselves or contracting RCMP do it for them. Probably not a bad thing but I'm not really sure why contracting was an option: local policing i

Policing in Canada is a provincial responsibility but except for Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, the provinces contract provincial policing to the RCMP. Major cities within provinces often have their own police forces.

The system works quite well. Places that are big enough to maintain and properly train police forces have them, but everywhere else uses provincially or nationally maintained forces. That way you don't have to worry about how well Joe the Sheriff in Backwoods Nowhere does his

That way you don't have to worry about how well Joe the Sheriff in Backwoods Nowhere does his job.

Except that's exactly what happens up here in Canada. In cases of the provincial police or even the RCMP, if you're on what they call "remote detachment" your office is your house, jail, and sometimes also the hospital and doctors office. You start getting oh 300km or so north outside of southern ontario and that's how it rolls.

And a lot of provinces are questioning having the RCMP as a provincial police, especially with the mass number of screw-ups, never mind that provincial police aren't the best optio

RCMP officers are rotated every few years, and all receive the same basic training, in the same place.

Also, your description of working conditions sounds like southern Ontario fantasy. I can assure you that in my home town, about 1400 km north of the latitude of Toronto, there was a regular RCMP station, completely separate hospital, and nobody resides at either one. Okay, technically the hospital has several residents since it merged with the long te

"The investigation was part of a cross-border operation involving Canadian law enforcement agencies, the FBI and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The two men arrested are accused of plotting to attack a passenger train in the Toronto area. The two men arrested are accused of plotting to attack a passenger train in the Toronto area.
The arrests Monday morning were co-ordinated and executed by a special joint task force of RCMP and CSIS anti-terrorism units, combined with provincial and municipal police forces in Ontario and Quebec.
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews congratulated the RCMP, CSIS and local law enforcement and thanked the FBI for their assistance."

The title fails to mention the fact that it was the Muslim community, up here, that turned the two guys in. Had nothing to do with the FBI. A few men, in the Mosque that they went to, heard about the plan and reported it to the RCMP.

Also not the first time the Canadian Muslim community has played a central role in preventing terror.

There was no "betrayal of their own community" here, unless their community is a community of violent bombers. This was some human beings who heard of some criminals discussing a plot, and not wanting other innocent humans to die as a result of their inaction.

Not every Muslim prays for "death to the infidels", not even if they attend the same mosque.

Not every Muslim prays for "death to the infidels", not even if they attend the same mosque.

In fact, we can make this statement much stronger: There are about 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. There are estimated to be no more than about 10,000 Muslim terrorists in the world. So what you can actually say is that about 99.9% of Muslims do not in any way support terrorism (assuming that for every terrorist there about 1000 other people that support their actions). The Al Qaida types are a tiny minority.

To be clear, I'm talking about those that blow up civilians, not those that support what they see as wars against dictators and other oppressive powers, such as the people supporting the Syrian rebellion.

Your number 1000 is pulled out of thin air. Countries are big places, and a heck of a lot more than 1000 people support each terrorist. If you assume that 10% of the population of Afghanistan supports terrorism, that's already 3 million people which is a lot more than a ratio of 1000 to 1 just from that one country.

In fact, we can make this statement much stronger: There are about 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. There are estimated to be no more than about 10,000 Muslim terrorists in the world. So what you can actually say is that about 99.9% of Muslims do not in any way support terrorism (assuming that for every terrorist there about 1000 other people that support their actions).

Whether or not that's accurate, you're limiting "terrorist" to those who go off and blow things up. If you add in the Muslims who practice genital cutting and honor killing as a matter of course, the percentage of, if not terrorist, brutal abusive misogynist nutcases goes up rather dramatically. Like 100% of the Pashtun to begin with.

Yes, I'm limiting "terrorist" to those who commit acts of terrorism. Genital cutting and honor killing are abhorrent (at least to me), but aren't acts of terrorism. My suspicion is that you're using the word "terrorism" to mean "things Muslims do that Westerners don't like", which isn't supposed to be an accurate definition, and is certainly not scientific.

If you do that, you have to include most Jews and half of Genteels on your list of "terrorists". Before anyone gets butthurt over calling circumcision MGM, only a minority of FGM involves the removal of the clitoris or sewing up the vagina like a turkey - which is indeed worse than circumcision. Type IA and IIA of female genital cutting involves trimming away some of the outer labia or clitoral hood [wikipedia.org] - which is of course directly analogous to male cir

This report states that roughly 8.5% of Muslims explicitly endorse attacks on American civilians in the US, and another ~10% have mixed feelings.

So "feelings" are the same thing as actions? No doubt you support drone bombing the shit out of rural Pakistan - does that mean there's no difference between you and the guy pulling the trigger, and the men in charge of the trigger-pullers?

Unless you are suggesting that public opinion does not matter and is not a form of support, your response is a complete non-sequitur. Fact is, public opinion does matter, and if the Islamic community wants to be taken seriously as a religion of peace, they oughtn't have such a sizable chunk of their constituents supporting violence against innocent civilians.

Despite the fact that I do _not_ support our drone attacks in Pakistan, it is not an equal comparison between drone strikes against suspected terroris

Why would they betray their own community? It can't be out of loyalty to the government - the same government that is guilty of genocide against the First Peoples. Personal grudge perhaps? In a multicultural country, citizens define themselves by which groups they belong to.

Because in reality, a "multicultural country" doesn't operate the way it's portrayed at Stormfront.

I think you've got it the wrong way around. The would-be terrorists are betraying the Muslim community in every possible way.

I'm certain that the immigrant communities understand that the extremists would be overjoyed to see them sacrificed to angry mobs in order to further the their agenda. There's not a lot of love lost between these groups.

(Of course, you're always going to be able to find some angry young men ready to sacrifice everything and everybody to

What a stupid post. The Harper government has done some things I disagree with, but it hasn't committed genocide. As for the rest, you don't betray your community, your neighbours or your country by turning in violent criminals.

Who the hell tries to bomb Canada? A country stereotyped by polite apologies and maple syrup.

Well that would be the same type of people as last time, and the time before that. Though not the same group as back in the 80's. The last dozen or so terrorist attempts have been attempted by "exceptionally devout muslims" back in the 80's we had two attempts by Sikh's, and back in the 60's and 70's it was the FLQ. [wikipedia.org] Despite what people think Canadians have a very thin skin when it comes to terrorism.

Canadians really are polite and well behaved. When I was working in Ottawa a few years ago I was delighted to see lots of people thank driver for the ride when they got off the city buses. We don't have that where I come from. Oh, and when three Canadians walk side by side talking to each other and filling up the entire width of the sidewalk, and they meet a lone pedestrian coming the other way, one of them takes a step back behind his friends to make sure that there is space for passing them. That's unhear

I highly doubt it's coincidence. What is a bit baffling is why anyone thinks it's necessary. It appears that everyone did their job properly, citizens were vigilant without being vigilantes, no rights were violated and no one got hurt. Sounds like a win-win to me.

What's worrying is that after a single foiled event, some lawmakers are going batshit and scrambling to get it passed. Here's a little tip: any time a new law is proposed that would seek to remove certain rights to make a law enforcers job easier, alarm bells should go off in your head. Doubly so when the timing is suspiciously exploitative of a recent fear-inducing event.

"So...exactly how powerful is a Wahabbi Sunni sect in an iron-fisted Shiite country? Think they have the bandwidth to help idiots in Canada (not the US) do some questionable damage?"

After 9/11 Iran actually offered to support the US for precisely this reason, but the US rejected the support and declared Iran part of the problem - part of the axis of evil.

The problem is, having been cast into this role, Iran then seemed to come to the conclusion that it may as well play up to it. Iran did give refuge to some senior members of Al Qaeda who fled Afghanistan, and by about 2005 there was evidence of both Iran, and it's ally Syria supporting some elements of Al Qaeda against the US.

It seems to be one of those rather misguided "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" scenarios, which Syria learnt to it's detriment given that many of the Al Qaeda affiliated militants it gave sanctuary, training, arms, and a base to launch attacks against the US and the new Iraqi administration to are now the same folks fighting the Syrian government.

Alliances change frequently and are odd things sometimes - don't forget that it was only about 25 - 30 years ago that America was funding, training, and equipping Al Qaeda against the Afghans and that even in Libya and now Syria America finds itself on the same side as Al Qaeda in wanting the overthrow of then Gaddafi, and now Assad.

So don't assume religious differences are enough to preclude any possibility of cooperation - all sides have shown they're willing to back the other when the situation suits. Al Qaeda and Iran have worked together in the past, and even if they weren't working together now, that doesn't preclude the possibility that they at least came from Iran, having gone idle there.

It's likely, as much as anything, that Iran at least still tolerates a presence of Al Qaeda in certain areas allowing them to retain a decent amount of strength on the off-chance that they become a useful tool in carrying out war by proxy, even if it doesn't give them active material assistance any more.

One of the other lessons Iran learned from that "axis of evil" declaration:- If you have nukes aimed at important US allies, like North Korea does, the US will probably leave you alone.- If you don't have nukes, and have valuable resources like oil, the US may falsely claim you are trying to get nukes and invade your country.

Completely rational response: Do everything you can to acquire nukes and aim them at the nearest and most important US ally.

I could see some Al Qaeda presence in Iran among some part of the Sunni population, but I have a hard time imagining the state itself would assist or hide them.

At a stretch I could see them aiding some Sunni extremists with the goal of destabilizing regional rivals like Israel and the bigger Arab powers. But Al Qaeda seems an odd choice since they have a history of attacking western powers which is the last thing Iran would want (the less the west thinks about the Middle East the more influence Iran will ha

"I could see some Al Qaeda presence in Iran among some part of the Sunni population, but I have a hard time imagining the state itself would assist or hide them."

At absolute minimum it's fairly well documented and supported that Iran held a number of Al Qaeda under house arrest since they fled there from Afghanistan, and that some were given greater freedom of movement after a deal that freed a high profile Iranian that was kidnapped by the Pakistani Taliban and that at very least some of those members were

reThey mention "Al Queda in Iran." ---
So...exactly how powerful is a Wahabbi Sunni sect in an iron-fisted Shiite country?
.
It's because the idiots who believe these things make mistakes in what they believe and what they write in their scripts. If they want to provoke an incident in Iran, they create stories with their worst possible bogey-man in Iran: hence their choice of AQ, which logic would show would definitely not be in Iran, as your comment so correctly points out. But when you wants idiots to

Some security experts were surprised by the alleged link to al Qaeda factions in Iran, whose Shiite rulers have a generally hostile attitude toward the Sunni militant movement. Reuters explained:
Iran did host some senior al Qaeda figures under a form of house arrest in the years following the September 11 attacks, but there has been little to no evidence to date of joint attempts to execute violence against the West.
However, a U.S. government source said Iran is home to a little-known network of alleged al Qaeda fixers and "facilitators" based in the Iranian city of Zahedan, very close to Iran's borders with both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The source said the operatives serve as go-betweens, travel agents and financial intermediaries for al Qaeda operatives and cells operating in Pakistan and moving through the area.
They do not operate under the protection of the Iranian government, which periodically launches crackdowns on the al Qaeda elements, though at other times appears to turn a blind eye to them.

From the page:Now the Conservative government has a majority and can reinstate the measures on its own, but the Liberals say they will support the bill. The NDP opposes the bill and is questioning the timing of the government suddenly moving the bill into an emergency-like debate, accusing it of "being asleep since December."

At least there is one major party in Canadian Parliament that's concerned about personal rights and liberties.Such behaviour should be rewarded.

Personal opinion and disclosure:I came to Canada since 2000 and tried to be "politically aware" even before I got the citizenship. I never aimed to benefit any single political party but rather aspired to get people to think critically about the parties and candidates, as well as establish dialogs with elected representatives in my riding to try to sway them toward the "personal rights and liberties" side. Unfortunately I have grown so disappointed with both the Liberal and Conservative parties and their candidates (on both the federal and provincial levels) that I now advocate voting for any candidate unaffiliated with those two (independents, NDP, Green, Pirate, hell - even Rhino [wikipedia.org]).

In any case an analyst on CBC made a good point. Many of the leaders fled to Pakistan but some fled to Iran. I think they may have even been put under house arrest in Iran. However they still harbored them and apparently were able to still communicate outside of Iran. I doubt Iran as a nation or a people were really more involved (really what to they have to gain?) other than hosting some of them likely to thumb their national nose at the US... As to how much influence or co

Seriously, they keep mentioning "the Al Queda link", but so far it sounds like Al Queda didn't do much of anything beyond someone known to be associated with Al Queda gave them a high five on the intern

These guys have been planning this since last year? What's to plan? What more would it take than a couple of guys with picks and sledgehammers to kink up the track? Perhaps a train buff out there could weigh in on this.

The arrest of these supposedly dangerous terrists (as Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety (and doesn't THAT sound Orwellian?) pronounces the previously three syllable word) was carefully timed to happen the same day that the government is pushing through a particularly nasty bit of spy legislation. [paroxysms.ca]The kind that lets the government lock you up for days at a time without charges just because you sort of fit some cop's definition of "terrist."

You mean the poor excuse for a rail system in Canada? Via has fallen into near non-existence in recent years. You might as well try and blow up a covered bridge out in the middle of nowhere to disrupt traffic flow.

You mean the poor excuse for a rail system in Canada? Via has fallen into near non-existence in recent years. You might as well try and blow up a covered bridge out in the middle of nowhere to disrupt traffic flow.

If anything were to happen to the covered bridge in Hartland, New Brunswick I assure you, it would be very disruptive to the flow of traffic.

On the heels of a terrorist attack in Boston, and after calmly watching these guys for over a year, the RCMP make arrests just as the Canadian government just happens to be debating a new anti-terrorism law in parliament [huffingtonpost.ca]. For certain political interests, it seems rather convenient to have the al-Queda bogeyman appear in Canada at this precise moment.

FWIW, we have seen precedent [bccla.org] for the Prime Minister's Office (illegally) influencing the actions of the RCMP.

This is about herding. Terrorist attacks are pretty common around the world but we only hear about those involving Muslims. Italy has suffered a long series of bombings by anarchists over the last decades, many of them mail bombs, but they don't make news in Canada and the US. Spain had bombings by ETA for decades with hundreds killed but they were ignored here. The IRA flubbed setting off another car bomb in Ireland a short time ago but it was ignored here. We are being herded to more and more fear and the

Americans seem completely unable to hear the difference between our pronunciation of "About" as/abawt/ and instead hear/abu:t/I can't understand how someone can't hear the difference of course, being Canadian myself, but I see the stupid "Aboot" thing spouted so many times by Americans, I have to assume its true.

So is the differences in sounds distinguished by listeners. Its called "Canadian Rising" and is uncommon with US speakers unless they are near the border but common in Canada. Its what makes US speakers who do not hear the difference, think we are saying Aboot.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_raising [wikipedia.org]

"No" what? Are you saying that the existence of one networked organizations precludes the existence of others? Or are you denying the existence of the networked organization known as al Qaeda in particular?

"On the other hand I had someone do a Lexis-Nexis search that shows the term appearing first in late 1998 at the New York trial. Nothing before that. That would indicate that the term might have been invented there. The word Al Qaeda translates into "the base" which is a generic term and because of that this issue might never be completely resolved."http://marc.perkel.com/archives/000753.html [perkel.com]

Yea, there was never an "Al Qaeda" as the media and government defines it - As a world-wide organization of Islamist terrorists. The CIA came up with the term to describe it's recruits, etc. (mostly from Saudi Arabia) in the Afghanistan war against the Soviet invasion.

CHICAGO—In what is being called the first conceptual terrorist attack on American soil, the landmark Sears Tower was encased in 18 million tons of strawberry gelatin early Monday morning, leaving thousands shocked, angry, and seriously confused.The Sears Tower

Authorities called to the scene of the senseless attack said they could do little to control the large crowds of dangerously bewildered citizens, many of whom searched desperately for some semblance of meaning in what had just taken place. As of